Stripper Mom: I'm Following The Bible

WorldNetDaily ^ | May 17, 2002

[L.N. Smithee]

Friday, May 17, 2002

---

---

Stripper mom: I'm following the Bible
Mother says high-paying job gives her time to teach daughter values

---

Posted: May 17, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

---

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

The mother of a 5-year-old California girl facing expulsion from the Christian school she attends acknowledges her job as a stripper is not one to be proud of, but says her work allows her time to follow the Bible by being a "hands-on" parent.

As WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, the mother, Christina Silvas, was called into a conference at Capital Christian School in Sacramento after school officials became aware that she works as a part-time strip-tease dancer at a local club.

Rick Cole, senior pastor of Capital Christian Church, which sponsors the school, and other staff members met with Silvas to discuss their contention that her occupation is in violation of an agreement with and commitment to the school philosophy that parents must sign before the children are admitted as students. Her daughter would have to be removed, she was told, if Silvas did not quit her job.

The officials offered to cover the girl's last month's tuition of $400 if Silvas would change jobs. They also offered to support Silvas both financially and spiritually, and to help her find a different job that was in keeping with the school's values. Silvas declined the offer.

As a requirement for admission, parents of prospective students must sign a "commitment" to support the philosophy of the school. That philosophy, in part, reads: "Emphasis is placed on learning about God and the truths of God's Word in relationship to man and his world; recognizing that the way to God comes through personal faith in Jesus Christ; and Christian maturity comes by application of the truths of the Bible in all areas of life." In signing the document, parents agree to maintain a "partnership" with the school "regarding the standards and criteria of a Christian learning structure that involves the entire family."

According to reporter George Franco of KOVR-TV, Silvas has retained legal counsel and is considering filing a motion for an immediate injunction to have the child remain in school while the mother continues to work as a stripper.

Last night, Cole and Silvas discussed the matter with Bill O'Reilly, host of "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel.

"We have appealed to her to change her occupation," Cole told O'Reilly, adding that "God would bless" such a decision.

While Silvas said she agrees with the school's philosophy, she sidestepped the question of whether she considered her occupation a "sinful lifestyle."

"I am just doing it for a season," Silvas reasoned, adding, "I'm not proud of what I'm doing."

Silvas argued that since her job takes her away for only three days a week – the days her daughter, Abby, is with her father – she is therefore available to be "the one to teach [Abby] the Bible at home," thus upholding her commitment to partner with the school in her daughter's education.

"The Bible calls on parents to be hands-on," Silvas told O'Reilly. She sees her situation as better than that of a single mother who puts her child in daycare for several hours a day.

When asked if it was fair that the school's actions were, in effect, punishing the daughter, Cole put the responsibility for the expulsion on the mother.

"My concern is, who is the cause of this consequence?" he asked. "The consequence of [Silvas'] choice is affecting her daughter adversely."

None of the participants in the televised segment talked about the possibility of litigation. Silvas did mention, however, that she hoped to find a new job soon and that people outside Capital Christian Church had offered to help her find work.

Previous story:

Kindergartener's stripper-mom in church-school flap

[lavaroise]

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son"

In general terms yes, however, this is not a case of a child actualy being punished for the mom's behavior, though socialists might view it as such. This is a case of mutualy treading jurisdictions of world views and cults. Since such are difficult if not impossible to resolve, and that government has even less of a right to intervene on those jurisdictions it does not own, by default, the school's property and wishes should be respected, despite the possibility of the reprehensibility of this act.

[TightSqueeze]

To a point.

Point taken, still this is not a black & white issue and Silvas is entitled to some kind of arbitration, there must be a way for all to be heard, and an equitable solution must be reached. We have entered a time when people will no longer trust supposed sacred institutions and with good reason.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"So now we are arguing that it is impossible to look at a attractive woman without lust?"

"I give the male species more credit than that..."

You know, I didn't want to bring that point up, but I'm glad that you did.

I don't normally become aroused in a nudie joint, even when being entertained by exceptional-looking nude ladies. It just doesn't happen.

I find it pleasant to view a beautiful nude woman dancing for me, but I just don't get aroused.

[Eagle Eye]

Silvas is entitled to some kind of arbitration, there must be a way for all to be heard, and an equitable solution must be reached.

Unless it is in her enrollment agreements, she does not. As one who has signed similar agreements, this mother has no upheld her part, has not done what she should have done and has rejected the school's authority.

We have entered a time when people will no longer trust supposed sacred institutions and with good reason.

Absurd point. On one hand we have church oficials who are involed in sleaze and covered up for sleaze and on the other we have church school officials who want to stop the infiltration of sleaze into their institution.

[gwynapnudd]

Like I always say:

Doesn't matter where you read the menu,
Just as long as you go home for supper!

[dpa5923]

Although I don't think a reasonable person would say stripping would be considered moral behavior by any mainstream Christian organization, you could argue the contract was vague on other questionable ativities. But the school attempted to work with the monther, even offering a free months tutition and job placement/networking help. The mother refused.

Any question of the moral nature of stripping in the schools perceptive was settled when the school identified it to the parent and attempted to help her find new employment. She refuse and showed her daughter and the world her desire for easy money was more important than a Christian education for her child.

[GussiedUp]

You know this is what happens when someone or some company puts some kind of clause in like an immoral act. Well immoral to half the people here is not an immoral act to the others, they need to spell it out to be sure. I would perceive an immoral act as adultery, prostitution or other illegal act which stripping is not.

It is ludicrious to suggest that a Christian school would consider stripping a 'moral' act and laughable to attempt to defend it as such. Very Clintonista! A BJ is also "sex" by the way.

The 'mom' failed the child. Place the blame where it belongs. I am a mother and I won't shame my son by being a stripper. Sorry, but I am tired of the "watering down" of Christianity so someone else can excuse their own behavior.

[Eagle Eye]

Well said.

[Dante3]

You statement makes no sense. Drinking water? Maybe a typo. Or are you one of those people who also argue for gun control, saying guns kill. Not, its people who kill.

As for strippers, an exceptionally high percentage of them do commit murder & other crimes. Obviously not all of them. Same with Pagan motorcycle gang members. They have a high rate of violent crimes. I would not allow my children into the homes of either. Both promote negative values.

[Heyworth]

Also, while strippers make up only a very tiny percentage of American women, they provide an exceptionally high perentage of female killers -- I forgot the estimated percentage but it was way above average.

I think someone's been watching too many late night movies on Cinemax.

[MEGoody]

To your post #307. . .Amen and Amen!

[codebreaker]

You know, every time a man pleasures himself a kitten dies and goes up to heaven...-just thought you would want to know

[TightSqueeze]

Unless it is in her enrollment agreements, she does not.

So you say, but I will give odds that in the end, a local earthly judge will decide this matter.

[abishai]

I thought taking responsibility for your own actions was a conservative idea. The woman was offered help, which in turn would help her daughter, but turned it down, knowing the consequences. Now she is whining and doesnt want to accept responsibility for her actions. Her daughter being expelled is one of the consequences that SHE CREATED. Christ taught us to love, yes, but also to be holy. Holiness demands love, but love also demands holiness. This doesnt mean His Church needs to be a doormat in the name of love and mercy. I got Capital Christian's address from their website. I think its a good idea to support them prayerfully and financially. If there is a legal battle, they will need it. BTW, for those asking what would Jesus do? Ask yourself what you would do before Jesus. Mary Magdalene washed Jesus feet with tears of shame, begging for forgiveness of what was in her life. It is the same thing I or anyone else who would be confronted by the Son of God would do too. Man is an imperfect creature, prone to wander away from God, therefore standards have to be set. Everyone has standards of conduct, as well as consequences for breaking them, small or great. In all, it is unfair to the administration to be vilified for keeping their word. They would be just as dishonest to the child if they let her stay. If conservatives glorify irresponsibility, then God help us.

[TightSqueeze]

She refuse and showed her daughter and the world her desire for easy money was more important than a Christian education for her child.

Easy money indeed, spare me the BS platitudes, like you or anyone else would give up a $50 an hour LEGAL job to go flip burgers at minimum wage, get real.
I got it, maybe you nannies can have your cake and munch it too. We could just ban strip joints, make the dancing illegal, build a few more friggin’ jails, and make the Bible the law of the land.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Next Case!

[TheCPA]

Expelling the child because the mom's actions offend the school is not right.

[Dante3]

LOL. That's not me. Don't have any movie channels, never had any. The only films I've seen recently were "Lord of the Rings" and "Black Hawk Down" and recommend both. Might go to see "Sipderman." Am trying to find a tape of "Brigham City" (I hear it's great) but local places don't carry it.

I get my info mainly from Fox News, a couple of website, and professional journals. Prefer to read books whenever I have the time.

[TheCPA]

Well, I am not socialist, and I view expelling the child as punishing the child for the mom's behavior. If the mom were a student at a Christian school, it would be a different matter. However, expelling the child is indeed depriving the child of an education in that school and constitutes a rejection of the child for the mom's behavior. I think doing so is totally contrary to the Bible that one should not be actively punished for another's wrongs. Certainly, the actions of parents and others have an effect on children. However, will the child be better off or worse off if the child is expelled? Does this school really care about the child or only drawing attention to its own self righteousness?

[dpa5923]

Read post 273.

I most likely would not give up a $50 an hour job to flip burgers, but I would honor any contratual agreement I made or if I decided not to honor, I wouldn't expect the other part to honor a contract I refuse to.

I have visted strip clubs in the past and do not believe they should be illegal, but I sure as hell don't think a private organization should forfeit it's rights under the first admendment to the Constitution (free association, freedom of religion) just because the mother of a child refused to honor a contract.

You are obviously unable to understand the different layers of a discussion such as this. Let me make it simple for you: A Muslim school prohibits the drinking of alcohol by students and parents in order to enroll in the school (a private school). One parent signs a contract to this effect and later breaches the contract. The school offers to provide counselling to help with the parents drinking problem and the kid can stay in school if the parent seeks treatment and stops drinking. The parent refuses, the school boots the kid.

In this hypotetical case I would support the private school because to the Muslim parent, boozing it up was more important than a Muslim education for his child.

How about this one: A private school ran by PETA freaks has the same kind of deal, only parents can't eat meat. If the parent breaches a contract, the school is not required to honor the contract. If this hypothecial case the parents desire for meat would be more important to him that a vegan education for his child.

Do you get it?

[AppyPappy]

I'm always amazed at the number of people who think the woman that Jesus saved from stoning got in Jesus' face when he said "Go and sin no more"

Woman: Don't you tell me what to do, Rabbi. I'm my own person. If I want to run around, I'll run around. Nobody tells me what to do. Don't be judgin me. Judge your own self. You can fling rocks at me all you want but don't tell me what to do. You Rabbis always tellin people somethin. Don't tell me somethin.
Jesus: I just saved your life
Woman: That don't mean you can tell me what to do. Nobody tells me what to do. You ain't my momma and you ain't my daddy. Don't tell me somethin.